When does Net research become plagiarism? Do journalists need to be more wary of how they pick up facts from published sources? Does retaining the fact but changing the sentences or style of writing mean something is not plagiarism?
People send examples of alleged plagiarism to the Hoot, sometimes long after they have appeared, when the matter comes to light. We have decided to set up a plagiarism repository where these instances will simply be documented. We leave it to readers to decide whether it constitutes plagiarism or not. We also hope it will convince writers to be more careful!
Complaint about Business Standard:
This paragraph appeared in the Business Standard on May 14:
Justice A P Shah of the Delhi High Court (who was part of the bench that gave the judgment on homosexuals' rights) was to have been elevated to the Supreme Court. Kapadia's was the chief dissenting voice in the five-member collegium that decides who should or should not move up to the Supreme Court. Some say this was because of rivalry from the days when Shah and he were judges in the Bombay High Court. Others say Kapadia was disapproving of two judgments Shah had delivered as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
And this is what appeared in the Outlook in its issue dated March 1, 2010
However, Supreme Court judge S.H. Kapadia is believed to have been the chief dissenting voice in the five-member collegium which decides who should or should not move up to the Supreme Court. Sources attribute this to a professional rivalry dating back to Mumbai when both were judges. Others, however, talk of Kapadia's unhappiness with two verdicts Shah delivered as the chief justice of the Madras High Court; the former is believed to have told lawyers who met him that the judgements were made for 'extraneous reasons'??"that is, considerations not germane to the case influenced the judgements.
Complaint about Telegraph:
this story has several paras similar to this story which appeared in 2007 in India Today:
Six, to be precise.
'RAW has been stonewalling attempts to let go of the ARC, which also snoops on nuclear tests and missile launches in the neighbourhood' So, the government now receives airborne intelligence from RAW and satellite imagery from the NTRO, going against the very logic of having a single agency for technical intelligence,' said the senior government officer.
India Today 2007
The word is that RAW has stonewalled the acquisition because it is anxious to protect its in-house technical division??"which also snoops on nuclear tests and missile launches in the neighbourhood making it a vital component of the Nuclear Command Authority. So, in a classic dichotomy, the Government now receives airborne intelligence from RAW and satellite imagery from NTRO, going against the very logic of having a single agency for technical intelligence.